Limewire Hits Back Hard: Sues RIAA For Antitrust And Consumer Fraud

from the this-may-get-interesting dept

Last month, the RIAA sued Limewire after Limewire wouldn't agree to simply roll over and pretend the RIAA's interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the Grokster case was actually what the Supreme Court said. The court actually said that services could be found liable, if they were shown to actively induce infringement. The RIAA and the MPAA pretended this meant that any file sharing network that had unauthorized content was flat-out illegal. Of course, that's a bit of a stretch. So, it already seemed like it would be an interesting case, but now Limewire has hit back even harder with counterclaims accusing the RIAA of antitrust violations, consumer fraud and other misconduct. Specifically, they seem to be making the case that the RIAA only wants to shut down Limewire because it is a competitive distribution mechanism that they cannot control, which helps compete with their monopolistic control on traditional distribution. It's an interesting claim that does make some sense, though the RIAA will simply try to paint Limewire as a tool for "thieves." As with many of these types of cases, there's probably a decent chance that the sides will settle before any decision is made, but in this case, it would be very interesting to see the actual outcome of any lawsuit -- both on the issue of whether or not simply running a file sharing network is inducement and on whether or not there really is an antitrust claim here. If the case does go forward and the RIAA loses on the antitrust issue, it could have a big impact on the traditional labels, and could actually be a catalyst towards forcing them to accept the changing nature of the market. This is becoming a case well worth watching.

Go Limey

Re: Go Limey

You know, when the first recording and playback devices came out, the music industry changed a lot.

Now the internet's here (been for a while even) and the riaa doesn't seem to understand that they have to change with the times. Gone are the days when we'd here a song, buy the CD and find out that the rest of the cd is shit. Now we can try before we buy. However, I admit that buying something I can have for free is very hard. My intentions are good but the whole motivation of it only being available through purchase is just not there.

So what does the riaa (fuck them) and the artists (salute them) have to do to get sales back up? Well, for one, artists need to make sure they've got a good cd not just a good hit on a shit cd. Another important thing is, there's some things we just can't download, like material objects. So instead of trying to sell the consumers a product that is lacking on all physical terms, give them something they can feel good about owning.

The best example I've seen of this is the latest tool CD, it's got a wicked case with an awesome 3D imagine setup. (If you haven't seen it, go and look). It's by no means the greatest thing since sliced bread but it is however innovative and gives the consumer something to actually hold and admire.

RIAA, stop complaining, for years now you've gotten away with murder, like a car salesman selling a nice looking car with a #$%#ed up engine, now you're unable to sell BAD cd's. Big deal.

You want unfair, how about paying $4 to download a 4 second sample onto your cell phone to be used as a tiring ring tone. Bastards.

Good luck, they'll need it

Never used limewire, but being such a presumably small outfit, I don't think their chances of winning on this one are good.

Though I think I am inclined to believe the RIAA definitely has monopolistic tendencies and tries very successfully to keep out competition... mostly to their own detriment. (whew, that was a lot of big words, huh?)

Re: Good luck, they'll need it

limewire is hardly a small outfit, it is a multimillion dollar outfit with the same sort of thousands of dollars an hour attorneys that the riaa has hired, this case is clearly one that i don't think we will ever get to see play itself out in court since both sides have valid claims and faults, in litigation we call this a settlement

It's too bad someone couldn't bankroll Limewire efforts to get this in front of a judge. This way they could attempt to force RIAA to submit evidence and they could be grilled in the witness box. Plus set a precedence.

Re: This is all B.S.

Uh, no.

GOOGLE was created for free porn. No need to install spyware laden p2p crap just to get porn.

Sheesh, some people are clueless.

As for your comment on downloading a single track from a legit service. There aren't any yet. Except eMusic, which doesn't carry major labels. DRM encumbered crap is not worth a damn penny. you're not actually buying the content when you buy drm crap, you're buying a license to listen to it today, with the implied expectation that you will buy it again and again and again if you want to listen to it tomorrow.

There is NO parallel between buying drm crap and buying a (red books tandard) audio cd.

Re: Re: This is all B.S.

Actually Winamp is great for free porn, just go to Shoutcast TV and there is plenty there, just make sure that you have those specific ratings (XXX) enabled to be displayed in preferences. As for MP3 download services www.allofmp3.com is great. It is a Russian site with American and European music as well as great selection of Eastern European music. No DRM and you even get to pick how it is encoded, all that for $1-$3 per album in most cases.

Re: This is all B.S.

Re: This is all B.S.

What music do you listen to then? Popular, commonplace tunes, I assume. I was only able to get The Pogues, 30 Fiddlers, Israel Kamakawi'woole, Captain Jack, DJ Keoki, Voltaire, Hermes House Band, Presizio, and so many others through download programs. The stores don't carry artists like those; very few of the artists I just mentioned have big labels. You know where to find them legitimately? (And for the record, I don't use Limewire. I just support them.)

Re: This is all B.S.

Re: This is all B.S.

I don't use Limewire, but I am sure as hell not going to buy any of the CD's I want to listen to. I either get em for free from the library, or find a friend who might happen to have one or more of the CD's I am looking for. Too expensive to buy CD's when you are trying to afford a car, car insurence and all that crap. Think before you speak stupid!

Stop downloading music illegally off sites like Limewire and go buy a CD or download a single track from a legitimate music distribution site. Use file sharing for what it was created:
-----------------------

You just proved Limewires case. File sharing is at the disposal of the USER, for whatever purpose they want.

Just like DOT is not culpable for thieves robbing a bank and then driving down their roads. Infrastructure does not imply intent.

the RIAA and MPAA are both corporate mafia's who use lawyers instead of hitmen.

so how have they been allowed to exist for so long, when they pretty much have monopolized the industry before the internet came along?

see, the problem is that the RIAA and MPAA know that they are screwed, and that they cannot operate in a world with the internet that allows the freedom of creation. that's why they are working so hard to get DRM into all the hardware, like DVD players, TV's, CPU, monitors, video cards, etc. they want to be able to control the content. but they are losing that control, and they are scared. first thing you do when scared, scream bloody murder, which is what they have been doing with all these pirating campaigns.

but until they outlaw corporations from lining the pockets of politicians, things won't change. american politics is so corrupted by corporate money, it's hard to find any politician who is actually "for the people". until they fix that problem, i don't see any true fairness happening.

so fight the power, support content that isn't owned by the MPAA and RIAA.

Where Have You Gone Oh RIAA?

To Qoute McLean and McLean.
Before they went after file-sharing, it was home taping.
These idiots throw tons of money (yours by the way) into stopping the exchange of music.
I hope they get nailed to the wall.

Re: Controlling content

...they cannot operate in a world with the internet that allows the freedom of creation. that's why they are working so hard to get DRM into all the hardware, like DVD players, TV's, CPU, monitors, video cards, etc. they want to be able to control the content."

AMEN! This whole RIAA/MPIAA fight is not about copyright infringement, it's about losing market share to independent content creators. "The little guy" now has the ability to create and distribute quality content without the need for the RIAA/MPIAA's services. That's what they are scared of.

DRM-ed content has not, and never will, to stop "fair use" (AKA "piracy"). However, DRM enforcing hardware can make it very difficult and/or expensive for independent content creators to distribute their non-DRM-ed content.

"Sorry, this content is not protected by ABC's DRM technology and therefore assumed to be illegal. Please, purchase a genuine copy of this content for playing on this device. If you wish to create content to be played on this device, please purchase a license to use ABC's DRM technology for $10,000 at abc-drm.com."

This is the world that the RIAA/MPIAA is fighting for, and it's already happening. My NEW DVD player refuses to play any DVD that I've made from my own 'Home Movies.' They continue to play "just fine" on my OLD DVD player.

Until recently, the ONLY way that an artist could mass market and distribute their creations was through the RIAA/MPIAA. And, in order to get them to LOAN you the money to develop your product, the artist had to sign over a large percentage of his or her rights to their creations. Artists still have to pay this money back, even if the album/movie doesn't return enough to pay for this loan. That's a major reason why you'll see 'one hit wonder' bands touring dive bars for years after they've faded to obscurity. They're often doing it to pay back the money advanced to them by their former record company.

The only people who buy the whole "it's for the artist" BS coming from the RIAA/MPIAA are the ones who have no idea about how the business actually works. With few 'big name' exceptions, online, self production/distribution leaves far more money for, and control to, artist.

Re: Limewire

Uhhh.... you have to shut it down when you are done using it or it will stay in contact to share the files that you have in your "share" folder, thats how it works. Don't slam something that you didnt read the instructions first.

Read the Label!

Amen to that! Don't knock the Lwire just because you do not read as to Label! If I had more of money from to driving the Taxi car, I should give all to Lwire so terrible people at RIAA (Right In America's Arse!) can become as sued and they take away all their power to harm the poor and down-trodden person like me all for I want to listen to good American girl, Brittany Spear without for to have to pay my good earned money for her! (she wink at me in her last video movie! I know she did, no to lie!) I should also like as to give RIAA manager a, how you say, Purple Nurple and his girlie teat! Serve him right!

Re: Limewire

Ummm...You are a DUMB ASS if you don't shut the application off of course it will continue to use bandwidth. Any file sharing application you use will do that Silly ass Dude. Geez this is a the reason why folks get into trouble with file sharing.

Re: Limewire

Listen closely to what your saying: "Limewire never warned you" that your ISP (Internet Service Provider) will be clogging the ports that you use for P2P with 80% useless network clutter just so you and your favourite File Sharing Program can't use their max bandwidth. So, instead of blaming ur P2P program, fight back! Change your Download PORT under options or preferences to port: 1720 > port 1720 is used by Microsoft NetMeeting.. which nobody uses and thats 1 port your ISP will be reluctant to mess with; since its for a microsoft product. You'll notice u get full download speed again. Fuck RIAA, fuck your greedy ISP, if u cant live free come to CANADA, land of modern day pirates!
P.S> on the subject LimeWire vs RIAA (limewire doesen't stand a chance but its a good wake up call for the future).

Re: Limewire

Re: Limewire

NO fuck you, it's not there fault you have a shitty computer. Limewire is for a computer that can handle the program. My limewire works perfectly fine and my computer isn't slow at all, get yourself a better computer asshole and stop blaming it on other people.

The bigger picture

I am a musician and I own more than 1000 CD's and a cabinet or two of Vinyl. I have no problem with the concept of purchasing music, IF I CAN FIND IT TO BUY!!!!! When the band wants to add a song to the list and we can't find it to buy, we turn to the file sharing guys. Never used Limewire, but I wish them good luck. The music industry needs to start listening to the consumers!

Re: The bigger picture

The RIAA controls what is sold in stores. At any given time less than 25% of their CURRENT artists material are actually being sold.

They own the market. They create a false demand by withholding material. They sue people for obtaining material they don't offer for sale.

So far, from what I have read, too, the RIAA has not paid artists for which monies on "legit" digital distribution has been obtained -- so their claim that they are protecting artists is also bullshit.

The RIAA is a band of thieves and deserves not only civil penalties but criminal penalties (fraud)

i'd watch/listion to it if the local networks aired it, they don't so have to get it from p2p. I'd buy it if the stuff was availalbe locally, it isn't so have to p2p!!!
sell it to me damn it, and I will buy it. Don't make it availalbe to buy outside certain countries then my only option is to P2p it. I guess that is why the RIAA only tends to sue state side

duh

BOYCOTT THE RECORD COMPANIES !!!! STOP BUYING MUSIC FROM THESE ASSHOLES! DO NOT PUT ANOTHER DOLLAR IN THEIR POCKETS. THE ARTISTS THAT YOU LOVE ARE ONLY MAKING MAYBE A COUPLE OF BUCKS FROM EACH SALE. WHY CONTINUE TO FINANCE THESE REAL PIRATES ?
I AM SICK OF THESE GUYS ONLY SELLING THE MUSIC/PROMOTING THE ARTISTS THAT THEY WANT TO. WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT THEY GIVE US, THINK ASHLEE SIMPSON. THESE GUYS HAVE CONTROLLED THE INDUSTRY AND RADIO FOR YEARS, AND ITS TIME FOR A REVOLT!!! LETS BRING EM DOWN!!!

Re: duh

Well you have some great points, but not buying music anymore isn't the answer. It is the artist that will suffer. A band that has a million selling album only gets about $20,000 to split between it's members. Not much, huh? A change in the system is needed. Someone has to stand up to the big boys to start that change. If you don't like the choice of artists that are being shoved down our throats, tune into Nashville Star, or American Idol and VOTE! Otherwise the Simon Cowell's of the world will continue to force feed us!!!

Re: Re: duh

"...not buying music anymore isn't the answer. It is the artist that will suffer. A band that has a million selling album only gets about $20,000 to split between it's members. Not much, huh?"

-------------

Um, so at what point am I supposed to feel sorry for the band for joining up with RIAA? Every one of the artists that RIAA represents signed their name to the contract. No one put a gun to their head. And don't give me that "if you want to make money" line, either. If you want to make money, get a real job. You want to make music, do the work to put on concerts and distro your content. Stop signing the short cut doc and crying about it later. It's not RIAA's fault.

Re: Re: Re: duh

You are correct! No one "made" anyone sign up with RIAA. No one "made" you buy gas from "Big Oil" either, but if you want to drive somewhere . . .
Do you have any concept of the amount of cash it takes to bankroll a concert tour? Or to print up 50,000 tee shirts? Or to produce a million CD's? I'll take that as a "no". Go down to your local night club Friday night and ask the band how much money they have in the bank. Do you have a job? Do you work for a company that produces something? Can I have it for free? How about 10 million of us, can we all have it for free????
The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed. Not paying for music won't fix it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: duh

No one "made" you buy gas from "Big Oil" either, but if you want to drive somewhere . . .
--I use bioD. petrol is bad for the enviroment

Do you have any concept of the amount of cash it takes to bankroll a concert tour?
--ya, ever heard of starting small?

Or to print up 50,000 tee shirts?
-ya, again, ever heard of starting small? maybe 100 at a time... put in some leg work. do something other than get drunk and beat a drum set for 2 hours a week at a bar?

Or to produce a million CD's?
--ya, $24.95 per 100 blanks at Fry's + $150 for a good, fast burner.

I'll take that as a "no".
--you'd be wrong

Go down to your local night club Friday night and ...
--sorry, I dont like drunks

ask the band how much money they have in the bank.
--before or after they blew it on drugs? all the bands I know make a good profit, then again they arent wasteoids with no investment sense...oh right, and they don't suck. maybe there's a connection

The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed.
--no shit, mostly these kids need to get over the "I have a guitar so give me a million dollars" routine

Not paying for music won't fix it.
--never said it would... then again buying all my CDs used didn't give a dime over to the artist either, but you dont see RIAA trying to sue me, or some drummer screaming at me online.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: duh

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: duh

QUOTE "The music industry is broken and needs to be fixed.
--no shit, mostly these kids need to get over the "I have a guitar so give me a million dollars" routine"

this is a fair point .. u can't be sued for buying used cd's or if someone gives you their cd.. im not sure about a copied version of it though so this may be wrong.. but if the original mp3 was bought and then passed on then its not illegal is it.. it would only be illegal if the person with the mp3 in first place didn't delete it making the copied one not really a copy.. that gets messy coz even the mp3 in 1st place is a copy of the cd i suppose. but all im saying is if u can buy used cd's or get them for free and its not illegal then surely its the same sort of thing.

Together we stand, divided we fall

While I am one, we are many. Borg borg borg. Join the collective revolt.
STOP BUYING MPAA and RIAA controlled materials.
Sure, we have to "suffer" with recording our music off the airwaves, like we did 10-15 years ago, then take OUR private copies, and mix our PRIVATE compilations.
I avoid, to the largest extent I can, *ANY* RIAA and MPAA controlled item, unless it's like, "V for Vendetta" because I have no OTHER way to send the makers (and NOT the MPAA) my money for their outstanding work.

I can only say, that how much money does the MPAA get when I RENT a film from a rental company??? Unless I REALLY need to maintain a copy (V for Vendetta) for repeated at-will viewing, instread of having to download it from my ISP on payper biew, or drive to rental place. Considering the $3 per rental would mean I can see it (licencing?) eight (8) times for the cost that owning it and watching it 4 times in two years? Honestly... paying the MPAA and RIAA for THAT?!?!? puhlease!
I'll rent once or twice and save my money.

as for suing state side, i don't think the riaa could sue outside of us jurisdiction

granted most uses of p2p are sharing of protected files, i'm glad to see someone taking a stab at the riaa. the internet isn't some free ticket you can use against people because your maket methods are outdated. i doubt the riaa would lose a battle with limewire, based on shear money limits. but ohwell. good luck all

so um... has the riaa even looked at limewires site, or better yet tried to download the software? you cannot download the software if you click the button that says you "might" use it to download unlicensed / pirated stuff..

FUCK THE RIAA, or anyone for that matter, trying to take away a medium that allows people to share their works.

and for the retard who says its "spyware laden".. dont "assume", we know what that does.

and for the other retard, who lost 90% of his "connection" speed.... you should know better that a p2p app works because other people are "losing connection speed" when YOU download. Dont flame something just because you couldnt figure it out.

Re: have to click "won't"...

Re:

"fucking car! i didnt know it used gas when idling in park!"

You know, on that note, I have to say, I honestly know a few people who are probably in that exact situation

Personally, Fuck the RIAA. They're just power-hungry and money-hungry and when something comes up that could get in their way, they try to sue it. Trying to sue the advancement of the world...blah, welcome to America, land of Fucking Idiots.

Duh by Bob

You wanna support an artist you like? Go see them live. Buy a t-shirt. They make more off a single concert ticket than 10 album sales. They make more of a t-shirt sale than 50 album sales. The record companies make all the money off the artists. They sign people with a little talent and stars in their eyes, them make them sign away their souls. That is why the really good artists start their own labels after much success.

I hate the RIAA. I hate the MPAA. I buy music and movies used to avoid putting my dollar in their pocket, and I buy everything legally. That said, I support the idea of file sharing and P2P. There are great sites with user created content like overclocked remix, as well as legit reasons for P2P, like downloading patches for video games and independant works.

I hate the monopoly that has become the recording industry and the movie industry have become. I hate that they use scare tactics. I hate that they alienate the consumers with foolish ventures like DRM. I really hate the DRM. Really. I hate that they can't change with the times. I hate politics here in America. I hate crooked politicians. I hate bribery. I hate lobbyists. I hate it all.

Here is my questions for you all. Who here has done anything at all? Have you all written your senators or representatives? Have you stopped buying new music? Have you done anything? These are easy to do kids. You can google your senators and they have ONLINE forms on which you can contact them.

But sadly, of the 20-25 people who are still reading this post, I bet that not one of you will. It's easy to sit back and complain. It's not that hard to stand up and take action.

Our apathy lends power to those we hate. Action is what causes change. Get off your butts and go complain to someone who can make a difference.

You guys are morons

Intellectual property laws (including the copyrights you guys are violating everytime you download a song using Limewire) are designed to allow a limited monopoly on the property subject to the right. These monopolies are necessary to encourage innovation and allow the creator of an idea to receive some benefit of her hard work and investment before freeloaders like you all can come in and get something for nothing. That's the whole point. There is no antitrust violation for protecting a legally valid copyright or patent. Send Limewire all the money you want, you're just lining the lawyers' pockets, because the suit's not going anywhere.

Frank shouldn't be calling people names

Frank you should be more careful about the words you throw around. You're confusing 2 entirely separate issues.
One is the RIAA's copyright case against Lime Wire. The other is Lime Wire's antitrust case against the RIAA. Your comment doesn't seem to address the latter at all, which is what the news article is about.

Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people names

Perhaps you're the one who is confused, Ray. Limewire's aintitrust claim has been asserted as a counterclaim in the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Thus, Limewire is attempting to defeat the RIAA's claim by alleging that the RIAA's actions (in defense of the copyrights) are anti-competative. My comment (and try to read a little more carefully this time) was that Limewire will have very little success attempting to convince the court that the RIAA is violating antitrust law by defending a valid copyright.

Re: Re: Frank shouldn't be calling people names

Perhaps you're the one who is confused, Ray.

I'll let Ray speak for himself, but you do realize that he's a lawyer involved in a number of these cases? He knows the details pretty well...

Limewire's aintitrust claim has been asserted as a counterclaim in the RIAA's copyright infringement suit. Thus, Limewire is attempting to defeat the RIAA's claim by alleging that the RIAA's actions (in defense of the copyrights) are anti-competative. My comment (and try to read a little more carefully this time) was that Limewire will have very little success attempting to convince the court that the RIAA is violating antitrust law by defending a valid copyright.

No, there's much more to it than that. Limewire is alleging that the RIAA is abusing its antitrust position in some of its actions. That goes beyond just protecting its copyright. That goes for completely shutting down alternate means of distribution, even if they have legal purposes. That's not just protecting a copyright, that's shutting down a system that others might want to use.

Re: You guys are morons

An artist does not need the RIAA to uphold or protect copyright law. That is what our court system is for. The RIAA is only looking to safeguard it's own bank account. If you think that the RIAA "Protects" the artist, let's go talk to some artists that woke up one morning to find out that they were broke. Ask them just how much "Protection" the RIAA is giving them! And just so you know where I am coming from: I BUY (legally)all the music I can get my hands on because I too am a musician who depends on our broken, lopsided system!

Re: You guys are morons

Well Ummm...FileSharing isn't leaving us anytime soon...Don't forget that...The RIAA sued 10,000 individual users everyone was in shock but people are smart and the fear of being sued wore off as they found more secure ways to download. Sue 10,000 users and 2,000,000 more users take there place. It's that simple the market for music has changed and the RIAA and MPAA haven't adjusted. Too bad for them.
And you Frank are are what I call a NUT RUB Head!

Re: Re: You guys are morons

"The market for music has changed" only to the extent that it has become easier for halfwits like DREi to get what they want for free. How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, "Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production." Here's the bottom line for DREi and the rest of you people: Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner. If it was your copyright, you'd want to protect it too.

Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

""The market for music has changed" only to the extent that it has become easier for halfwits like DREi to get what they want for free. How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, 'Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production.'"
-Frank

It has been said time and time again, ad nauseum, that you can compete with free. The market has changed so that copies of music are available for free to those who can find them. Here's the point... those copies are crappy. It's poor recording at sub-cd quality. It's not the cost, it's the value. I've stated before here

"And that's what the recording industry has failed (miserably) to do: provide a value. Since all you can download is less than CD-quality MP3's and substandard video, the ##AA is in the enviable position to put out a product that is so much better than these crappy copies. But, instead of doing that, they pump out over-priced garbage that's laiden with DRM and other henderances (and risks... remember Sony?). They have made it (or kept it) to where the drop in recording quality is an acceptable trade-off for easier-to-use product."
-Gabriel Tane

I'm not saying that they shouldn't protect thier product. I'm saying they should use tacitcs other than an extortion racket.

And as far as "Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner."...

You're right. It is (possibly) a violation of copyright laws. I could throw out a bunch of what-if's but that's not what I want to do.

What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property.

Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

What I do want to do is keep the focus on where it belongs. On the fact that the RIAA isn't trying to protect intelectual property. They are trying to protect thier monopoly on the distribution of that intelectual property. - Gabriel Tane

I appreciate your coherent argument (as opposed to some of the lunatics on this board), but I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist. Protecting the intellectual property necessarily means protecting the distribution of that property. That's the whole point of copyrighting a work--so you can make people pay to see/hear/use it. If anyone can distribute the product (and here's the key) without paying the copyright holder, then the copyright is worthless.

As for the reduction in quality argument, I think you're being pretty disingenuous, because the difference in quality is negligible at best (we not talking about a tape made by placing a mic in front of the speaker of your CD player). It's also quite irrelevant legally. If I make a somewhat blurry photocopy of the newest bestseller and passes it out to anyone and everyone so they won't have to actaully pay for it, the copyright violation doesn't go away just because it's a little harder to read than the printed book. The key is that you're not doing anything to alter the substance of the work; it's an exact copy of the song, perhaps lower quality, but exactly the same in all substantive respects.

I don't understand how you can attempt so strenuously to justify what is clearly against the law. Is it really so important to be able to listen to the newest Eminem single for free?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

I appreciate your coherent argument (as opposed to some of the lunatics on this board), but I think you're making a distinction that doesn't exist. Protecting the intellectual property necessarily means protecting the distribution of that property."
-Frank

Thanks for the nod. It's nice to see that honest, good-spirited debate is still appreciated.

No the distinction does exist. The point I was making is that the ##AA doesn't care about the intelectual property. They know that if they lose that property, the can go clone some more. What they don't like about this is the loss of control over the distribution. It's a power, trip. Plain and simple.

"If I make a somewhat blurry photocopy of the newest bestseller and passes it out to anyone and everyone so they won't have to actaully pay for it, the copyright violation doesn't go away just because it's a little harder to read than the printed book."
-Frank

Uh... google books? Wasn't it decided that that was not copywrite infringment?

As to the rest of the quality... yes, mp3's aren't that bad. But the RIAA has the resources to produce a product that is so far superior in it's value through features that they would be worth it to buy. They just don't.

"I don't understand how you can attempt so strenuously to justify what is clearly against the law. Is it really so important to be able to listen to the newest Eminem single for free?"
-Frank

I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of "it's the law". Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have thier purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it "just because it's the law" or, as you put it: "so clearly against the law".

I had this whole soap-box speech on a previous thread about giving up your little liberties. I think it applies here as well: Enjoy

Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

"The market for music has changed" only to the extent that it has become easier for halfwits like DREi to get what they want for free

Are you new around here? The market has changed in a lot more ways than that.

How would you have the RIAA and MPAA adjust, genius? Do you expect them to say, "Oh well, I guess we should just let the consumer have our product for free and we'll just eat all of the costs of production."

Not at all. As we've pointed out REPEATEDLY (do a search), there are plenty of ways that the RIAA and MPAA can embrace sharing and actually end up EXPANDING their market and making MORE MONEY. By recognizing the content, by itself, is a promotional vehicle for selling other things (and I won't go through the list of possible other things yet again, but it's long and quite lucrative).

Just because you don't understand that there are other business models doesn't mean they don't exist.

Drop all the pseudo-Marxist justifications and recognize that by downloading copyrighted material (of any kind) without the permission of the copyright owner, you are breaking the law and violating the rights of the owner. If it was your copyright, you'd want to protect it too.

Hmm. This is the argument I understand the least. We've defended this position repeatedly using FREE MARKET language. Nothing Marxist about it. Free market economics teaches you that price gets driven to marginal cost. In the case of content, that's zero.... It's all about free market economics.

I do agree that it's breaking the law, but that doesn't mean the copyright owner shouldn't realize there are other opportunities to make more money by embracing what it's customers want.

Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

"...there are plenty of ways that the RIAA and MPAA can embrace sharing and actually end up EXPANDING their market and making MORE MONEY." - Mike

Just because you think it's a good business decision for the RIAA, Mike, doesn't mean you get to force them into taking that route. This is what I don't understand about your position: What gives you the right to decide that someone else isn't handling their business correctly, and that you should be able to take action to force their hand?

I'm guessing you're not a Wharton grad, right, Mike? I think you mean that profit is maximized when price equals marginal cost. If the marginal cost of producing music was in fact zero, then the record companies wouldn't be making all this money that you all are ranting about. The marginal costs IS zero to Limewire users, because they didn't incur the costs of production. And the RIAA's big problem is that with file sharing, the price to consumers is now zero, well below the producer's marginal cost, which of course has a negative effect on profit.

I STILL can't understand how you can spend so much effort attempting to justify what you all know is theft. Wouldn't it be easier to just say (as some have on this board): "Yes, I'm stealing, but the risk of getting caught isn't a big enough deterrent to make me stop."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

"I STILL can't understand how you can spend so much effort attempting to justify what you all know is theft. Wouldn't it be easier to just say (as some have on this board): 'Yes, I'm stealing, but the risk of getting caught isn't a big enough deterrent to make me stop.'"
-Frank

I'll reiterate my previous point, and expand:

"I don't understand why you would so blindly hide behind the justification of 'it's the law'. Not all laws are just and not all wrongs are illegal. I'm not saying that copyright laws don't have their purpose and that they don't serve to protect... they do. But, I don't think this is an appropriate application of those laws. And I'm not going to accept it 'just because it's the law' or, as you put it: 'so clearly against the law'."
-Me

1) Who says its theft? Show me the court case that backs up your interpretation of copyright law that says downloading copies of digital music files is theft. Show me the court case that has been closed and is no longer being appealed and reviewed.

2) If we disagree with a common interpretation of a law, is it not our right to stand up and say so? Isn't that what our whole legal system of appeals and precedence based on?

3) Who says we have to share your view of what is and is not theft? Who says your interpretation is any more or less correct than mine? Now, if you are an official of the Judicial branch of our government, and you have signed off on a case that sets the precedence, making your interpretation the interpretation, then fine. I'll stop downloading. Until then, I believe I am right and I will continue acting in accordance with my conscience.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

"If the music is copyrighted, such swapping, which involves making and transmitting a digital copy of the music, infringes copyright." In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1107 (2004), reh'g denied, 543 U.S. 1180 (2005).
It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)

Sorry, I deletes some of the "re"s to save a bit of space. Those do kind of stretch out some.

"'If the music is copyrighted, such swapping, which involves making and transmitting a digital copy of the music, infringes copyright.' In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 645 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1107 (2004), reh'g denied, 543 U.S. 1180 (2005). It doesn't get much clearer than that."
-Frank (#110)

I certainly hope it can get clearer than that. You pulled a quote from an opinion attached to the denial of an appeal. That appeal was for the injunction that was brought about while the full legal action was still being decided.

here's the problems with this:

1) that's a district court. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation that becomes the "law of the land"

2) this is the opinion of a circuit court judge (see #1) in relation to an appeal of injunction, not in the decision of a copyright case.

This excerpt does not constitute law.

"Just to be clear, I did not use "theft" in the criminal sense, as there is no criminal penalty for violation of copyright. If that was your point, Gabe, you're correct. I think you were challenging the legality of music downloading generally, though, and as the case above shows, it's clearly illegal."
-Frank (#111)

See... here's where the RIAA is disagreeing with you.

They equate as follows: downloading = copyright infringement = theft = illegal. And this is what I'm disagreeing with.

If what you say is true in that "as the case above shows, it's clearly illegal", then you're contradicting you earlier statement that "there is no criminal penalty for copyright infringement". If it's so clearly illegal, then you would be guilty of breaking the law. There is penalty for that.

If you disagree with the law, you should fight it within the proper channels, instead of taking the law into your own hands. Our legal system is not based on vigilante justice. Otherwise, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions."
-Frank (#111)

Again, this goes back to my statement about whether or not it is illegal. You say it is. the RIAA says it is. But I disagree and I'm choosing to act based upon my personal belief. If I'm wrong and charged... and I appeal it... and the appeal goes to the Supreme Court who then says that I'm wrong... then I will agree that it is illegal. Until then it's not the final law.

I do understand what you're saying. Due to the actions brought about by the RIAA against Napster et al, it would appear that hte interpretation of copyright infringment being illegal would be upheld. But the point is that no one has gotten it far enough for a decisive interpretation by the Supreme Court.

I would like to point out that no one has been found guilty of copyright infringement. So far, the "closed" cases have been settled. While you could interpret that as "Napster knew they would be found guilty", that is not the same thing as actually being found guilty. I will also admit that I am not 100% sure that no one has been found guilty. But I don't see any evidence through searching that there has ever been a guilty verdict. Please prove me wrong if I am.

Re: Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)

You're confusing civil and criminal illegality. The RIAA does not seek criminal penalties against music downloaders (i.e. no one is being sent to jail). Copyright violations are civil wrongs (torts, if you will), that do not result in criminal penalties (jail), but can result in civil penalties (money damages). Remember all of this from the O.J. trials?

The case I cited is from a United State Court of Appeals (the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to be exact), not a district court. The court's langauge makes it clear that file sharing copyrighted music violates copyright laws, and is thus illegal (not criminally, though). I think you could spend a whole lot of time trying to find a single U.S. court that has ever determined that P2P file sharing of copyrighted music DOES NOT violate the copyright, and come up empty handed.

And you are wrong about the law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have to issue a ruling for a law to become final or enforceable. The law is enforceable as written, unless a successful challenge is raised.

Finally, while your terminology is again confused (civil defendants are not found "guilty"), I point out that every default judgment taken against a defendant in the RIAA cases constitutes a finding of liability and a violation of the copyright law.

Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons (#110 & 111)

"You're confusing civil and criminal illegality."
-Frank

No, I'm quite familiar with the difference. I deal with liability all the time and I know how that works. My point is that illegal is illegal. Shouldn't matter if it's criminal or civil. The RIAA and you believe that downloading is illegal. I disagree.

But that excerpt wasn't the court's language in regards to the legality of file sharing. That excerpt was an opinion expressed in the denial of an appeal of an injunction. That opinion does not speak to the final legality of sharing. That injection was to stop the defendant from operating while the copyright case was being heard. Such an opinion expressed in that copyright case would be more along the lines of court-stated law.

"And you are wrong about the law of the land. The Supreme Court does not have to issue a ruling for a law to become final or enforceable. The law is enforceable as written, unless a successful challenge is raised."
-Frank

And again, your last sentence there is exactly my point. Not to wax-Schrodinger's with you, but as long as it can be appealed, I hold that it is not a final law. Yes, along that line of thinking, there are very few "final laws". But my point is that while I may not be 100% correct currently or yet, I am not wrong. While that enforceable law means that someone could be accused and "tried" (criminally or civilly) does not mean that they are guilty of a wrong-doing (again, criminal or civil). That's why the appeal system is there. So the innocent can protect themselves from false or incorrect accusations. Otherwise, the RIAA, or anyone in a similar position, would be able to just accuse their competition out of the picture.

"Finally, while your terminology is again confused (civil defendants are not found "guilty"), I point out that every default judgment taken against a defendant in the RIAA cases constitutes a finding of liability and a violation of the copyright law."
-Frank

I may not be on the same page with the whole "guilty" terminology, but I would like to point out no RIAA cases have gotten to the point of a judge saying "you're wrong, pay up", which is what I meant by "being found guilty". They have all been either settled before that point (those RIAA extortion settlements), or they are still getting to that point. So until those cases are heard and decided, I'd not state so easily that they are definitely guilty or in violation of copyright law.

borat

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You guys are morons

Just to be clear, I did not use "theft" in the criminal sense, as there is no criminal penalty for violation of copyright. If that was your point, Gabe, you're correct. I think you were challenging the legality of music downloading generally, though, and as the case above shows, it's clearly illegal.

If you disagree with the law, you should fight it within the proper channels, instead of taking the law into your own hands. Our legal system is not based on vigilante justice. Otherwise, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Re: RE: Shawn B.

Funny Shit

I remember the days of the Commodore 64 and how companies came out with cartridges that allowed you to stop and peek inside any program while it was running or copy it from a protected floppy diskette to another, yet none of the software companies sued the makers of these products. Today we have the same prinical on a larger scale yet the RIAA is suing everyone.

hmmmm

What I never could understand is... How does the RIAA and MPAA get away with suing people who have content and saying that those people have made them loose money??? The fact is, you can't claim a loss on a potential sale! People aren't stealing something tangible... it's digital... the only thing a Record Label looses is a potential sale!

So they are screaming FOUL because they THINK they could have made more money. Look how they do their math... If 10,000 have illegally downloaded a song that cost $0.99, they say they lost $9900.

1. They didn't loose anything... just a potential sale..
2. What make's them so sure that without file sharing, 10,000 would have paid for the song?

all american idol is...is just an avenue for the RIAA to bitch slap us with more shitty music. is clay or ruben around? i haven't heard of them. only kelly. that's it. but then again, i live under a rock and listen to techno music. voting for american idol is a game. piece of shit.

Re: American Idol by Anonymous Coward

Well, actually Clay is still around and just released a new album. But let's talk about Kelly Clarkson: She was the "people's" choice. She has done amazing things in terms of success. Simon didn't like her and didn't want her to win. If the record company exec. had his way, we wouldn't have Kelly! That brings me to Carrie Underwood. Simon did everything he could to keep her from winning. She is now on her 4th big hit from her first CD. She is the ONLY double winner in the CMT Video Awards this year, she has broken record after record. My point: American Idol is not perfect but it is a place to express "our" opinion over the record companies. If you don't VOTE and express your opinion - THEY (the record companies) WIN. If you want things to change, do something that makes a difference - get involved!

Donations

I'll donate to the legal funds for Lime Wire RIAA needs to be reined in a lot they are an overzealous big hammer slamming everyone and anything they feel remotely threatened by regardless of its legit or not.

P2P offers more than Itunes ever could.

It's impossible to get rare tracks and collaborations and otherwise unpublished materials like live concerts outside of P2P. The wealth of individually recorded tracks and small-time bands out there worth listening to is gargantuine, and I'm sorry, but all I find on itunes (and I do download from them as well) is the same stuff I would find in a music store.
20,000,000 songs isn't all that much when 19,999,500 are garbage crap tracks that all sound the same.

Re: P2P offers more than Itunes ever could.

feel bad?

Go limewire....

I feel bad when I see musicians bitchin and moaning about people downloading music......with their million dollar houses and 8 exotic cars in the background, they are barely getting by! I used to be a Metallica fan until the Napster episode....now I turn the radio station whenever Metallica comes on....no kidding!! I will not even listen to them!!

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

This may be floating the fine line here, but wouldn't the definition of copyright infringement be taking someone's original works, and either wholesale stealing them and claiming them or changing something only slightly with the same result?

Talking about twisting things up. What's the difference if I download a song off the internet, or I wait for it to come on my choice of *free* radio stations and record it? The difference is the transmission method and storage method. One is digital, one is analog (or digital depending on what you use). I'm not taking the music I download, renaming it to list my name, or band, and resending it out as *my* original work. I'm just listening to it. I'm not selling it. I'm not in anyway, shape or form, altering the original song/movie.

An artist..a true artist (art for arts sake) could care less about being compensated for their work. First, the artist must be good at what he does. If they're good, the RIAA and the MPAA don't even matter. They are there to get paid, not the artist. A good artist can produce art, get paid and be famous without either institution present.

All we get from these institutions, now, aren't even artists. They are first businesses, and if any even possess an iota of talent, artists second. All these products from these instituions are just that...products.

Talent sells itself..it always has and always will. Sure artists will get paid for their work. They may not make millions but thay will manage as all of us do. In fact, the greatest asset an artist has are the fans and fans have a unique way of turning others on to their art far better than the media can.

First: I despise the RIAA and it's tactics. They are underhanded and unethical. They rely on the financial inability to defend ourselves to browbeat us into doing things thier way.

Second: The RIAA is right to enforce the copyrights they impose. But, has it been decided by law that P2P is violating those copyrights? Serious questions here, I don't remember if anyone said a definitive "yes" or "no"

Third: it was said that the RIAA is a bit overboard. Ya think? Seriously. I don't have the link, but a previous TechDirt article pointed to an article written by a defense lawyer that was helping one of the moms that was fighting back. The article explained the RIAA's tactics and how questionable (but not quite illegal) those tactics were.

Basically, the RIAA gets a list of songs that it "knows" were downloaded and a list of IP addresses that it "knows" facilitated the downloads. The resultant John Doe's are subpoenaed and are found to be in default when they don't show up (nice loophole, huh?).

Once that happens, the RIAA gets court orders to scour those IP addresses for names, then hits each individual up for every one of the songs on that list, without proving that the individual downloaded any of the songs at all. That's why the RIAA drops the cases that start to fight back. They know there's no proof of their allegations. They are relying on the belief that we lowly pirates won't be able to afford to lose the fight, and therefore won't risk it. We'll take the definite loss of the settlement in exchange for the possible higher loss.

So, that's the process some in this thread were coming damned close to defending.

Now, all that said, let's look at points from the posts:

-do something by contacting you representatives-

and this will help how? The law is already in place. The Legislative branch has done its job. Now it's time for the Judicial side to interpret that law and decide how it is to be enforced (i.e. precedence). Unfortunately, they've done a cock-up job of it so far.

-The RIAA is protecting artist who would starve otherwise-

You know, I almost gave this a pass until I realized you were serious.

How much of those extortion-like settlements that the RIAA has bullied from consumers has actually been paid to the artists? How many artists have seen one single red cent from that? Yeah. Thought so.

-American Idol is/isn't a way for our voice to be heard-

Uh... American Idol is entertainment... well, for some anyway. Hate it myself.

AI comes out with one new "idol" per season. That's hardly enough to say "there's our voice changing the music industry". The point is that our way of changing the music industry should be our purchasing power. If a band is well-liked, people will by the albums. If not, the band won't go anywhere.

Now the choke-point of that is through distribution. If no one hears of you, how can they buy your stuff. That's where the RIAA still holds its control. We're seeing things change as more and more artists are doing small, local releases and telling fans to spread the love. Also, the MySpace music thing is a step in the right direction.

But I hardly see American Idol really doing anything about the Cookie-Cutter-Crap-Pop problem now-a-days.

"My point: American Idol is not perfect but it is a place to express "our" opinion over the record companies. If you don't VOTE and express your opinion - THEY (the record companies) WIN. If you want things to change, do something that makes a difference - get involved!
"
-Charlie - Fab 4 Drummer

Given what I said about how miniscule an effect AI has on the music industry, I'd go so far as to say that the voting and opinion-voicing ability delivered by AI is a token at best.

So, it's there for a reason. One could argue that it's a way for the record companies to placate us by giving us something that will make us say "finally, a way to voice my opinion!". If that's the case, then you are letting the record companies win by voting.

My final penny:

If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.

Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).

Re:

Re: Gabriel Tane

I'd just like to say bravo. I wasn't going to bother commenting (after so many comments, what's the point) but I just wanted to commend you on your clear, logical comment. Thanks for sumarising the argument into such a refined post. Cheers!

Re: Re:

"the reason they drop cases when defendants fight back is because they know (i hope) their "evidence" wont stand up to scrutiny and above al else, they dont want a ruling not in their favor that would set precendent for all the judges that cant think for themselves"

the reason they drop cases when defendants fight back is because they know (i hope) their "evidence" wont stand up to scrutiny and above al else, they dont want a ruling not in their favor that would set precendent for all the judges that cant think for themselves

Say it again

So well said, I thought I would copy and paste it again.

If you want to help; if you want to stop one of the meanest and biggest bullies in the market... stand up to them. If the RIAA bully wants our lunch money, we all band together and say "no". Support those who are currently going toe-to-toe with the RIAA (that mother that was wrongly accused, Limewire, all the other defendants who challenged the accusations). Through a determined and unified defiance of these tactics, we can put a stop to anything.

Remember, it was over 200 years ago that a determined group of colonists told a king "no more" to what they considered unfair taxing practices. (sure, there was a lot more to it, but it gets my point across).

Damin this site!...I get lost some times...sorry..

If you love music...

People don't realize that those of us who share music and download P2p probably own more CD's than anyone else if they really love music. Any artist will tell you... if you love my work? Don't buy my CD. Go to my show. Even the large artists, unless they own their own recoding label, they make shit on CD's sold. Literally, they can make pennies for each CD sold. Where does the rest go? The record label. Considering that it can cost less than a penny per CD created and CD cases aren't that much either.... these large recording labels aren't doing too badly. You want to support the artist? Go see them play on tour. Yeah, buying the CD helps but you're padding the haunches of the record company more than anyone else.

I am not dumb about what is going on either. Yes, it takes millions of dollars to fund a grand tour for a famous band across many contries. Yes, it takes millions of dollars to produce millions of cd's and market to spreak the artist's work and not all recording industries are bad. I point at many industries that are formed by artists themselves. (Nothing records.... blue black labels... ect. ect. ect.)

People need to be more informed because it's becoming more and more difficult for smaller bands who might rely on p2p to create a name out there to actually thrive. Metallica was giving away tapes in their infancy and if people weren't copying them for one another then who knows how they would have ended up?

Legal shit

most artists are fucking rich anyway, and dont mind ppl downloading thr stuff (ive seen interviews where countless bands have saind they dont care, INCLUDING lars ulrich of metallica) its completely the MPAA and RIAA just wanting to make as much money as they can.

YEA LIMEWIRE! GET THOSE FUCKS! man bout time some1 did something.... torrentspy just took it and left.. they wer scared to do anything bout it.. well i agre.. who would risk their whole company just to prove a point but yea some1s gota do it.. btw SUPPORT AMERICA! check out my site.

Music Sharing/File Sharing

Well now...this whole RIAA thing makes me wonder if perhaps the Louvre should be sueing websites that post images of the Mona Lisa, or other things that are in their possession though not their property?

Or perhaps authors should sue websites that tease readers into buying a book by giving the first chapter[instead of the first 13 lines, which is technically not publishing, though an entire chapter is]

I myself am a musician, though I'm certain you've never heard anything I've recorded, unless you know me. I don't have a label or anything fancy like that. If my songs were being swapped around on Limewire I would be excited. I exalt musicians who promote music "sampling" such as Green Day[they sell green day patterned blank CDRs, with the banner "You downloaded the music, now heres a place to shove it!" on the website]

The RIAA does nothing but keep Musicians and Profit down. They do no good for the people they "serve" and only cause chaos and terror in the general populous...and thus, we can safely say, that the RIAA are Terrorists...in fact i wouldn't be surprised if their monopolistic scheme were somehow tied into Al'Qaida...

j/k on that last part...but for reals, way to go Limewire, kick their ass!

QUOTE
"Not paying for music won't fix it.
--never said it would... then again buying all my CDs used didn't give a dime over to the artist either, but you dont see RIAA trying to sue me, or some drummer screaming at me online."

thats the right quote and again my response

this is a fair point .. u can't be sued for buying used cd's or if someone gives you their cd.. im not sure about a copied version of it though so this may be wrong.. but if the original mp3 was bought and then passed on then its not illegal is it.. it would only be illegal if the person with the mp3 in first place didn't delete it making the copied one not really a copy.. that gets messy coz even the mp3 in 1st place is a copy of the cd i suppose. but all im saying is if u can buy used cd's or get them for free and its not illegal then surely its the same sort of thing.

WTF???

actually there is a video have from Frank Zappa where he does an exact breakdown of how much money he recieved from Warner Brothers records when he had a contract-per LP sale, per concert Ticket, Per piece of merchandise, and then he started his own record company, then did the same comparison. Major Record companies have ALWAYS been theives, usually headed up by some dopey young dipshit who "knows what the kids want" because he's so "hip and young". I worked in the record industry for years, it was bullshit in the 1970's, 1980' 1990's and even bigger bullshit today, especially since 1/2 of the record companies have been bought out by one another. That's why there are 29, count em' 29 flagship labels working under Atlantic Records alone. Virgin records has been bought out for the Umpteenth time since it's start in 1972. they started as cotillion (the label that started "E.L.P", yeah thanks for THAT!). BMG has officially bought out 10 labels in the last year due to the popularity of shitty teenybopper acts and labels such as Jive/RCA Records(who by the way signed and then quickly dropped acts such as "Kid Rock" and "John Denver" to make room for more palatable acts such as "New Edition" and more recently "Britney Spears" not to mention "Kevin Federline" as well has been signed to that shitty label as well. BTW, just a footnote - Joh Denver made over 250 million dollars for that label in the 1970's & 1980's. My answer is to start your own label and continue downloading, you are not stealing from a sole (or soul..however you see it). It costs approximatley $2.85 to press and package a CD (unless you're "Tool", and have to make up for the fact that you have been milking the same "King Crimson" cow for a decade, so in that case it costs maybe a buck more. The record label gets 85 1/2% per draw on every cd sale. that's about 11.00 per sale, unless it's Sam Goody or one of those crappy stores, Then the record label gets about 20 bucks, Basic cost for a chain to buy a cd box-lot of 25 or 30 is 10.30 per disc-The artist ONLY gets paid if the sale goes through from the reatil chain to the teenager. Bottom line is MERCHANDISING is what pays the artist, Getting the name out there, and not in an "US Magazine" Jessica Simpson/John Mayer are dating kinda way (God, that poor bastard is an excellent guitarist, I don't think the world will ever know), But in a Jeff Buckley, play every friggin' night until you die kinda way.Half of the "stars" from 5 years ago are a joke now-Christ 'member when Hammer was big???, how about Korn or Limp Bizkit. All I'm saying is, Support acts by NOT buying tickets through ticketmaster, But buying in person at a box office, Buy some swag they sell at the concert-don't give in to the crap the RIAA says about "stealing"-They have been stealing from Great bands since the "payola scandal" that put great DJ's out of work, and some into their grave. Remember the band "Badfinger", they were signed by Paul McCartney, (You know him right?), They were the 2nd biggest band in the world behind the Beatles at one point, and the label exec's at capitol bought out the rights to Apple records when the Beatles could'nt run it anymore, and Badfinger lost everything. Their music, their publishing, their royalties, the homes, their cars, everything, so much to the point that 1/2 of the band committed suicide due to all of the stress brought on by the record industry. I can go on all day. SCREW THE RIAA! Torrents! Limewire! Bearshare! Go, just support for the right cause!

Case

The RIAA and the MPAA don't have a leg to stand on in this battle. It like saying that remington should be sued becasue of how many people used their product to kill someone.
Ultimetly it is up to the user to decide how the product is going to be used. If people decide to steal music that is thier choice not Limewire's.

Awesome

analogy

To me RIAA and artists are like pimp and whores.

People are embracing 'open source' more and more every day. Why do we try to go backwards and asserting Intellectual Property on songs ?

If the sales of records keeps going down day by day, then the artists will eventually realize they can do better without pimps. The pimps rarely helps, the whores with looks and talents will be the popular ones.

People really need to listen

Limewire does have some fall backs, it can use alot of system resources but there are fixes out there if people would just look!

Limewire does not contain any spyware, go to kazaa for that BS.

The vast majority of the time people use Limewire for single songs not downloading full albums, thats what bittorrent is for.

You would think the MPAA & RIAA would learn that charging rediculous prices for CD's, DVD's ect. would make them lower the price instead of loosing Millions of Dollars sueing little girls and boys.

They have shut down countless websites and guess what? they reappear in a different country on a different network! they will never stop the file sharing world, unless they grapple on to it properly and stop with 15/30 bucks for DVD.

money

its all money and bullshit..buying a cd, that is expensive, and only because i heard 1 song on the radio or tv or some shit..end up buying it and listening to the rest of the cd and found out you paid for junk..

RIAA

At the end of the day, the RIAA are a bunch of theiving scumbags who try to control and make money from everything possible. LimeWire decided to go against the wishes of the RIAA (and good on them too). It's about time someone stood up to the scumbags. I sincerly hope that LimeWire win this case, it will make history.

p2p increases profits

One thing the riaa should look at is how much they make because of p2p. I've bought around a hundred overpriced cd's after downloading them first. If it weren't for free downloading the riaa wouldn't have seen a cent of the approx. $2,000 I've spent on music.

this is gettin rediculious

P2P is great yea, but RIAA and MPAA is tryin to run around like they are the tyrant of the internet. how do they know if we downloaded the files or bought the items. its like sayin i let you borrow my cd and copy it to my computer. that noe tillegal now is it? the internet is just a faster way for doing that. also, check out this article while your at it. its a pretty good idea.

Fuck yea

Control me.

I want to control who hears what I make. I want to control what everyone breathes. I want to control what everyone feels. I want to control what everone sees. I want to control what everyone drinks. I want to control what everyone thinks. I want to copyright my creativity so no one else can improve. I want to destroy all traces of my personality in everyone else. I want to annihilate all daydreamers who use others work to inspire them. I want to watch all traces of humanity vanish in our souls.

Do you feel it yet? I always have and always will. Down with the pathetic institution of copyright and control. Our societies are shackled by our own greed.

Disgusting scum who believe all pirates are the equvilent of bank robbers and grocery store bandits are imbeciles who only kick and scream about wanting to be one in a million. You're just one in the millions who want to be one in a million. The songs have been sung. The poems have been written. The RIAA and its fanatical followers need to realize that this is unstoppable. Dispite the fact that Limewire may lose you cannot control all of society no matter what the threat may be.

Make the sentence death, I will still stand by my beliefs. Down with the RIAA and its attempts to put a leash on our minds.

If a musician truely loves his music even if its played on the streets he will be happy. Because it pays well we're getting an influx of ignorant, worthless, pathetic music artists releaseing trash in the hopes that it will fill their pockets. Musics soul is fadeing away and the meaning is being lost in the greed.

Say what you will, but they are just words. A word to all downloaders. Unleash hell, or should I say Release hell.

Yeah I know this sounds fanatical but hey, I guess I can't be changed.

interesting

correct me if im wrong, but the grokster case means that any file sharing utility that caters specifically to pirated media are the ones to be shut down? if that is the case then limewire is not at fault here because on the main page before you download you are asked a question about copyright infringment, that question right there is all limewire needs to save their own ass? seems to me that limewire could win this one if they have enough support. very interesting.

interesting

correct me if im wrong, but the grokster case means that any file sharing utility that caters specifically to pirated media are the ones to be shut down? if that is the case then limewire is not at fault here because on the main page before you download you are asked a question about copyright infringment, that question right there is all limewire needs to save their own ass? seems to me that limewire could win this one if they have enough support. very interesting.

The bottom line is "$'s" and fear people!! These organisations, be they in the US or elsewhere are trying to maintain the status i.e. they continue to get rich. We are forced to listen to the same recycled shit that has been force fed to us, as consumers, for decades. The music industry produces covers and the same formula music year after year.

If you are looking for a major change then look no further than the free market. This is what Limewire provides. We need to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough!! Don't try to hide behind this copyright bullshit, these are not original ideas folks they are excessively recycled crap. When recording artists promote downloading through their lyrics or public comments it’s time to ask questions. Bottom line, we are not the cash cow for these people to be "milked" so they can buy their new merc. GO FORTH LIMEWIRE AND DESTROY.

GO LIMEWIRE!!! And while your at it...expose the corruptness of the RIAA and the MPAA. Why should political backed associations get away with the same thing Limewire represents? Sounds like alot of money is at stake here and all the pasty Repubs are getting nervous and jealous they're not making a bigger cut. Bunch of liars and theives. Power to the people. I have every damn right to download any shareware I wish and use it for my own personal use. I still purchase CD's and DVD's and software anyway and give my money to the supergiant industries that already profit WAY TO FLIPPIN MUCH! Give the power to the people, not the corporations to do as they wish and direct the American people into lies. You all drink the same freakin water and deny it when you get caught. I hope Limewire exposes some truth and sheds some light on the bigger picture here. Some fags sittin around making laws and get all butt hurt when they aren't making a bigger cut. They all grab from the same candy bag. Watch your ass this Halloween for bully repubs. Suck my ass you corrupt politicians!

buying cds

why would anyone buy a cd from a big corporate label, i mean any artist on a huge label has plenty of money that the $1 they make out of the $20 you pay for the cd is hardly going to matter to them. $19 of it is going back to the RIAA. why not try a better idea and go see a concert if you want to support a big-name musician you like. i'm sure real artists appreciate fans cheering in persons a lot more than just buying a piece of plastic at best buy or whatever. if it's a small band on an indie label, by all means, do the right thing and support that label: pick up a t-shirt, sticks, and some albums, odds are its gonna be impossible to find their stuff on limewire anyway.

I support Limewire, but it's going down anyway

Limewire's being more and more overrun by viruses found in fake files (especially fake porn that seems to appear no matter WHAT you type...honestly, i want MUSIC!!!), and that pesky "[ Buy Legal MP3's.com ]" file that ALSO appears no matter what you type.

Not to mention music companies (probably) deliberately spamming Limewire with fake files.

Limewire used to be good...until you could download the premium $30 version for free ON it! LOL!

Anyway, even if Limewire doesn't win, it's still very symbolic in the fight against totalitarianism (can't think of the right word at the moment).

Just a few thoughts

In the past, I bought CDs, frequently, sometimes 30 or so a week. I usually ended up with a good CD, liked the majority of the songs. CDs from 95-2001 seems you could drop the damned thing on asphalt and it would still play. Today, you go buy a cd and drop it on a carpeted floor and its going to skip.

I do not have any stores within 25 miles that sell CDs. Wal-Mart being the exception, but I'm not 7, I don't want edited music. So I am expected to drive 30+ miles, spending over $10 in gas, at least $10 on the disc, and get 3 good songs? That is bull shit.

My theory..., I own over 600 CDs, most of which only have 2-5 decent songs, I think for my other 6000 songs that suck, I should be able to download 6000 I do like, because I will not be listening to the ones that suck. Hell, if they can come up with a solution, they can have the damned things back. heh.

Hmmm... there can only be one outcome

However much we all want the RIAA to get owned, the fact of the matter is they will not. They simply have too much money which they have practically 'stollen' from the artists they 'support'.

There are many sites and programs that can be used to share files and the RIAA is starting at the top of the list and working down it. Knocking off all of the biggest sites first. This is reminiscent of the America's most wanted list where people are killed and knocked off the list.

However Limewire will not lose either. Limewire is not breaking any laws and so can't lose. Now if Limewire had copyrighted materials on there servers then they could be sued as this is an infringement - allowing copyrighted materials to be downloaded from them. But as Limewire is only software that has the potential to break the law it is not Limewires fault if someone does break the law. Users search other users computers for files they want and so Limewire has no control over this and as long as they make clear to their users that it is illegal to download copyrighted materials (which they do) and as long as they say that they have no control over the files and so some of it will be copyrighted materials and so illegal to download (which they do) then they arn't breaking any laws.

When was the last time a gun company got sued beacuse one of there guns was used to kill someone. I certainly don't remember it. And when was the last time guns were banned because they have the 'potential to kill, or potential to break the law' just like Limewire.

So really however much we all want Limewire to win it really isn't going to happen and my guess is it will end in a stalemate probably with a settlement before it goes as far as court.

Thsi process will continue for many years to come with the RIAA using scare tactics (sueing anything that walks... and most stuff that doesnt for ridiculus amounts of money. But then they settle before they get to court for something much much less like £100. lol. But we only hear of the original amount they wanted which was like £10,000,000 and so this sacres us. P2P IS NOT ILLEGAL and just like anything else if its not breaking and laws it cant be stopped until a law is introduced to say it can. The sooner the RIAA come up with better ways to deal with the problem the sooner we get out of this loophole. The RIAA definately need to change from thes outdated policies and scare tactics.

pirates

DO WHAT YOU WANT CAUSE' A PIRATE IS FREE...

YOU ARE A PIRATE!! xD

actually according to FSM belivers, increasing the amount of pirates will help against global warming. there is a statistic showing that the global average temperature has increased dramatically and synchronizedly with the amounts of pirates decreasing.

besides, should I get arrested if I took a cd from my self and loaned to a pal of mine cause he wanted to listen to a few songs on it without having to buy the whole cd?

basically SOMEONE paid for the songs thats on the net, and he decided to share it with others. the songs still has been paid for. they are arguing over money that they COULD have made, they did not lose any money. its like trying to arrest people for crimes they did not do but for what they could've done.

"omg, u could liek killed that dude on the other side of the road if you had driven over the road."

Morality of the RIAA

For those of you who say that downloading music is clearly theft, which is illegal, I agree with you. But here's my question: who, exactly, are we stealing from? It's the ARTISTS. Art is a form of self-expression, and it really shouldn't matter if you make money off it. Should it really matter if the artist makes very little money through a label? I don't think so. I do think they should get a larger cut per CD, though. 10%, at least. Labels are too greedy.

Now, I'm not saying record labels are a bad thing, what I'm saying is that they're far too concerned with making money. Greed is what's pissing people off and making them turn to Limewire. It's already been stated that it costs next to nothing to make CDs. There's not much of a labour force to pay; everything needed to make CDs is automated. Price per cd? 24 cents, retail. Price to produce? I wouldn't know, but how much does a hunk of raw plastic cost? Not much. What costs the most to make CDs is the machinery, which is a one time cost (plus maintenance). How about paper? Paper is dirt cheap. Always has been. Ink? Ink is cheap, too. The costs of making one music CD with album art, etc. is less than two dollars plus machinery costs. So, their profit margin is AT LEAST 400% once they're past the costs to set up the operation. 400% is huge. And that's minimum. Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else?

Now, look at it this way... what if artists skipped the whole label thing? There's plenty of sites popping up online for artists to upload their music to to be shared. And if they give the say-so, you can download, and distribute. Simple as that. Check out www.purevolume.com . There's a lovely 'random profile jump' button that takes you to random musicians' page within a genre. Great for finding bands in your preferred genre. Get enough sites like that up and running, and there'd be no need for labels anymore. Easy access to any band in the world makes it very easy for bands to get publicity.

Mm. Running out of time on my end. And to anyone who doesn't like my sporadic way of presenting my thoughts, fuck you. Anyone can memorize a format, and I choose not to.

RIAA

What the hell is their problem!! People,this is crazy, the RIAA bitching because they cannot control the distribution of digital audio and video. If the singers would not receive so much monies for doing what they do and lower the prices of albums say like $5 or $10 per album, then maybe more people would buy rather than download. There is no need for a SINGER to make like 10 million for making an album. Look at doctors, people who save lives, do they get millions for saving a life? They save a lot more lives than musicians make music so if anything the RIAA can go $%@k themselves. Use the money for a better cause, without us, there would be no music industry to start with!

this b.s

were withy oyuuuuuuuuu

we're all with you limewire don't let them get away with it if you feel you can beat them don't settle anything with just hit them as hard as you can and even as hard as you cannot
:))))))))))))))))))))))))

My problem

Is this. It is easy to say that we should just buy the music. However, there are many problems with this. What if one can't afford to buy music? And the radio stations in their area suck ass? Should they be deprived of good music due to circumstances beyond their control? Or what of those who prefer to listen to something other then the Top 50 dribble? Many of the songs that I have downloaded in the past were songs that were simply unavailable to me through any other means, including these websites were you pay per song to download. I do not think that it is fair for companies to limit what we can or can not listen to largely based on geographic area just because they are having problems with people using these downloading programs for wrong reasons. Fine, you want to get rid of these programs? Then make ALL music readily available to EVERYONE regardless of where they live, and at a reasonable price.

Look people and get it straight music, video, software piracy has been around since before most of you were born Asia is the largest software piracy in the world but they shut down 4 and 9 come back up, do you really think they can shut everyone up and not have another 5 in the waiting to start where the other left off. Piracy is unstopable and uncontrollable they are just wasting peoples money with all the court shit where we as tax payers and working peiople paid for. Give you a word of advise RIAA & MPAA..."GIVE IT UP YOUR NOT MAKING A DENT IN YOUR EFFORTS"

Go Limey!!! MPAA got ridiculous when they (tried) banning guitar tabs and song lyrics on the web! What a load of shit! Truth is most tab books out there suck, and thats if you're lucky enough to even have a tab book in existence for a particular band you like... and if one does exist, chances of it containing ALL the tabs of the songs you actually want to learn by that artist are zero.
I support the bands i like by seeing them in concert and buying their merchandise (stickers, tshirts, posters, DVD's, etc.)
Truth is album prices are so high because of the fact that so many people download them for free... but its kinda like pollution, just because *I* stop using my car, air pollution isnt going to get any better... we ALL need to stop driving, and thats just silly. Same with albums, if i start buying albums they're not gonna get any cheaper, we'd ALL have to start buying them... even then they wouldnt get cheaper... if demand was higher prices would increase too.
So i'll continue to get my albums for free, anything and everything i want. If its a band i'm a loyal follower of i'll buy it, just to help push them up on the charts or get closer to that music award.
i'm sick of stupid laws telling me what digital media i have the legal right to possess.
its a losing battle, i mean, you shut down limewire, BANG, another P2P pops up. may take a few years to get good, but it will happen. you cant stop the net, the cat was let out of the bag a long time ago...

Re:

"Truth is album prices are so high because of the fact that so many people download them for free... but its kinda like pollution, just because *I* stop using my car, air pollution isnt going to get any better... we ALL need to stop driving, and thats just silly. Same with albums, if i start buying albums they're not gonna get any cheaper, we'd ALL have to start buying them... even then they wouldnt get cheaper... if demand was higher prices would increase too."
-John J

No, no and No. CD prices haven't increased since this whole piracy thing started back with Napster. CDs were still ridiculously priced back then. That's one of the arguments against the RIAA's claims... the fact that there has been no observable impact on album sales or price by piracy.

And, without going into a long lesson in economics, higher demand does not mean higher price. Higher demand without an increase in supply would mean higher prices. I seriously doubt we'd see an increase in prices if "we all started buying albums". Especially when you consider that most of us do already buy albums... as we've argued before. We "pirates", more often then not, go buy the album anyway. The number of people who would "start buying cd's" is much less than you think.

Modern industry

If the band sent all their music out for free (let people download it from their websites?) they could make more money off of concerts (where they get the big bucks from anyway)

If the RIAA wins this.. in 10 years ill be sued for playing music in my car with any person next to me, because they didnt pay for the music. No music in restaurants, no music in movies, no music anywhere exept on a personal iPod-like device (only made by Microsoft.. "doh!") that refuses to boot up if it doesnt read the 12 gigabyte encryption key implanted in a chip in my right wrist. And it only supports two earbuds that read the heatsignature of the inside of my ears. And i can't play it too loud or it'll automatically dial an ambulance to treat me for eardrum damage.

Either join the amish or move to europe.. Because america hasn't been free since the civil war. (slavery yadayada.. is that an oxymoron? not good at english ^^, but thats what im dutch for) And the RIAA is just the agency to prove that. People in the US have guns to protect their rights, they dont need agencies for that!

FOR F*CK SAKE, WHERE ARE THE COWBOYS?

In the rare case i watch a western (off of bittorrent of course, because my government doesn't bitch like yours) it makes me cry to see what a pathetic country full of even more pathetic people the US has become. The only reason the us is so powerful is because it is the only country in the world that has 200 million down-right drones in it's service! Long live aristocracy!

(FYI: Advertisement amongst youth is about 10 times more effective in the US than in the EU. 9 out of 10 sales in the EU is based upon either personal experience or personal experience from a trustee of the customer with a product. Sounds like we actually think before we buy.)

P.S.: Start listening to music with character, instead of the "I've got feelings too!" mindless crap that gets shoved up your behind. Music that makes you cry makes you weak. Weak people don't get good careers and eventually start to hate themselves. Weak people give in to criminality. Weak people don't dare to act upon government.

About weak people; funny how a bunch of stupid mouseclickers proudly calls themselves pirates. I like to punch immigrants and weak people while listening to P2P'ed music on my iPod. And I don't think im anywhere close to being a pirate. Although you have no idea how ****ing powerful I feel when I'm just being me.

Re: Modern industry

As a regular kid in Britain, I find that many British bands especially have prospered due to the Internet, and it's growing cult followings, none of which were widely known or labeled.

These are only 2 examples:
Arctic Monkeys, distrubuted their stuff through Myspace alone, and now their music are played numerously on national radio stations, (And one international station, if I was going to be picky)
Biffy Clyro, a great scottish band but hardly anyone's heard of them. Simply due to the fact that they are happy with the fanbase they have.

There is some huge talent out there, and for many bands, Limewire has recieved high acclaim for essentially helping to distribute there otherwise obscure names.

This is the future of the modern music industry, and if it isn't then surely it should be? Music like any other art, shouldn't be easy to break in to.. so shouldn't musicians do the work for themselves, (IE gigs, merchandise and doing things the old fashion way.. personally) Much more importantly, they should prosper themselves for doing so, without the need for a thrid party.

The fact that creation and it's distribution is so horribly restrictive. It simply goes to show that the US government is an appaling thing to behold, that makes "the toppling of a dictatorship" an almost hippocritical thing to say or in fact do.

it's about damn time...

Someone took a shot at the RIAA. ok Basicly the RIAA for those that DONT KNOW is a government founded agency run TOTALY by the Record labels. You know the greedy MF's that sign the artists and then hog all the money when THEY SCREW the artists. For example take Kitte THEY got screwed by Artimis Records for alot of stuff. Artimis is a member of the RIAA. you do the math there Jr. the RIAA needs to go, the Polotician's are the one who let this happen and it's up to Us the People of the USA to let them know write you Congressman your Senator or even W himself ... wait that might be a bad Idea the guy's an idiot. Anyway Write to them tell them the RIAA needs to go. If tat polotition says well the RIAA is only fighting for the money the artists deserve BULLSHIT write them again and tell them they WONT be in office. It's a BIG election year folks It's time to make your voices heard.

OK first off I'm an online Radio DJ and yes I use limewire to download music BUT it's music I already Bought. Yea I'm too lazy to rip the music myself why should I pay for something I already own. I shouldn't. And yes I'll even admit I download I sometimes download the advanced versions of the new artists songs before or shortly after the album hit's stores but you know what I go out an buy the CD. I have a friend who got FINED and threatned with prison time because he down;oaded music of the net. Sure he downloaded entire albums but like me HE ALREADY OWNED THE CD and was too lazy to burn it himself. thats why I'm so angry at them because they could turn arround and do it to me.

If you go to the RIAA's website you'll see they have a video up about fileshareing and it's the biggest load of SHIT I've ever seen.

I'm sure the EFF should be helping limewire if not then make a donation to them and help them fight the RIAA. Or if you cant aford money Help out by Writing your Congressman and senators, but make sure you use the words OR YOU WONT GET MY VOTE OR ANYONE I KNOW"S VOTE especaly if they are up for re-election. Hell even contact the canidates running against them and ask them there opinon to help you vote for the right person. and if you cant get any of them to listen then write in NONE OF THE ABOVE. Dont not vote make your voice heard.

go lime vvire

Same song, different players

Hmmm.... why does this remind me of Sony v. Universal Studios? Oh THAT'S RIGHT! We're fighting the same battle again! Universal sued Sony for making it POSSIBLE to pirate videos with a Betamax tape deck. But the court decided that was fair use and that infrastructure does not imply an inducement to break the law.

And lets also not forget that the president of RIAA and Metallica once ENCOURAGED people to copy their Metallica tapes and share them with friends. Metallica used to toss their tapes into the crowd before they were signed so that people would listen to it.

But now........ now that you can get the entire works of Metallica in under 5 minutes in perfect quality, they want to cry foul. So which is it? A great way to get a band discovered, or a criminal act? You can't have it both ways just because you have most of the music industry's nads in a vice.

And yeah, I download movies and music from time to time. Music I download because I'm NOT paying $17 for a CD that has one or maybe two songs I like. And if I download it and like it, I usually run over to MSN Music or another online music store to buy a high quality copy for 99 cents. The only CD I've gotten in the last 10 years was given to me by a buddy who's the drummer in a local band.

As for movies, the ONLY company hurting because of me is Blockbuster. Why? If I think I'll like a movie I ask my friends, if they like it I'll download it. If I download it and like it I buy the DVD. And in the last year I've gone from a DVD rack made for 32 DVDs to one made for 267, and I'm looking for something to take its place soon.

The RIAA and MPAA don't like what they can't control, that is the cornerstone this case is based upon. They hated Napster until they assimilated it into their Borg hive, now its "okay". And so it is with Limewire, Grokster, Bearshare, uunet, IRC, torrents, 0-day sites, and so on.

My hope is that they expend SO much money trying to put all these little companies out of business that they'll end up putting themselves out of business, or at least diluting themselves to the point of insignificance.

Music = Art

Art basically has a message to be expressed, right? But sometimes the message is lost under the mainstream and we never see the message. With file sharing, we can look to whatever music we want, to whatever artwork we desire.

Some people just don't have the money or are saving up for something great in their lives; I really think the artists should really be happy to be heard and (maybe) could get signed as a result of how easy it is to get exposure online on Limelire and other FileSharing online locations.

In a way, the net is just another canvas for various artworks for anyone to paint upon.

I know I'll get flamed for this and I understand that I don't make sense, but I must ask you this:

This is all stupid.

P2P programs are like free trial music. You Download music, you test it to see whether you liked it or not. If you did, you go out and buy it so that you can listen to it in it's full utmost quality and glory in car stero's, sound systems, and Super systems for parties. Music companies are so ****ing stupid that they don't even realize people are doing this. I've baught tons of CD's thanks to music tests through P2P. The music companies need to: Sit down, Shut up, and Enjoy the ****ing millions of dollars they are making thanks to P2P programs, In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if CD sales have went up over the years because of P2P. I bet if someone checked, statistically they have more then likely went up 2x what they used to be. OK? THANKS! BYE!

enjoy your life,, make it easy stop the hassels

you people should GO LIVE YOUR LIFE AND STOP THINKING OF MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY WE HAVE S T U P I D,,,,W O W easy to see ,,,,,for me it is...Ha IDEA go fuck my wife and i will fuck your wife and we will all be happy and fuck the other stupid stuff

Limewire and 360share pro

I came on to see this site, to see if anyone had any CONSTRUCTIVE comments about Limewire or indeed another music download site called 360 share pro ( both of which are exactly the same by the way) After a brief scroll down the comments, all I found were a bunch of guys, the majority of whom used foul language throwing insults at each other without REALLY SAYING ANYTHING !! I know that was not all of you out ther, so " if the cap fits, wear it " ? Does anyone please have any information about a possible scam operating by these two sites ? I have a lot of harrowing stories Regards and awaiting your replies please.
Susanna

Give em Hell! I say take sites like myspace, youtube or whatever comes next and promote independant artists/labels exclusively. I say give them what they want cleanse the net of their offensive odor. They don't want you to hear their music...fine. They don't want you to watch their music videos...fine. Stop giving them free promotion and just make the entire internet clean of their vile. As they try to conquer and buy out these new youtubes, myspaces...let the people move away yet again.

I look forward to the day when major labels and the mpaa look at the p2p sites and realize that nobody is trading their material because nobody is interested.

I mentioned the last part about buying out these websites because every website that has a revolution going on these companies descend upon it like a drunk man in a china shop and starts trying to find ways to exploit it. The place becomes history in no time and they end up destroying why people visited in the first place. Think of the old mp3.com.

The truth is they don't want you to hear the competition because when you realize that the artist they are promoting is worse than 10 other independants that are of the same style of music. And when you realize this....they are extinct.

shit bag

Greed, Greed, Greed. It's the only reason that bands sign with RIAA labels, and the only reason that it's allowed to exist.
Perhaps both the RIAA AND the bands need to realize that "making a fair living" from their work does not necessarily mean becoming millionaires.
I mean, really, most of us would be happy with six figures, do we really need 8?

Limewire is breaking the law and should/will be punished. I will donate to the RIAA. :-( I bet all of you guys here are kids or teenagers with no real sense of life and the economy. Honestly, you wouldn't steal a car...

Re:

Why do you say they are breaking the law when all they do is provide a means of information exchange, and where do you draw the line of responsibility (ie: is the ISP also responsible, or the host of the downloadable for limewire's installation - assuming they don't own thier own)?

LIMEWIRE U ROCK

Hey limewire, i hope you kick riaa's buttocks. They just dont like you because they think you are trying to set up a network for everyone who wants the so called "illegal things". They dont like you, so they want to bury you under the ground.

music

Hey RIAA, WHAT DO YOU OWE ME?

Found this at the Guntella Forum

Hey RIAA... what do YOU owe ME?

You're claiming that file sharing deprives you and artists of legitimate income. Perhaps so... but just how is that calculated? That there have been reduced sales of CDs and you believe the difference represents what consumers WOULD have purchased if not for file sharing? But music sales depend on what's being produced that consumers are willing to buy... right? There's not much new stuff I like so I haven't purchased a CD in perhaps a year.

Do you assume that each consumer must pay a license fee for each song they own?

If it's the latter... then by not creating a system where consumers can prove they purchased a song on, say a 45, LP, cassette, 8 track, whatever... YOU have been immorally collecting these license fees twice, perhaps THREE times, when a consumer upgrade from mono 45s to stereo LPs to CDs. Aren't much of what you consider your legitimate fees really just an acidential windfall from improved technology the artists had no part of creating?

So RIAA... since you're so good at calculating what you consider financial "losses" to P2P, do THIS math:

I have about 200 old 45s I bought back in the 60s, 100 pre-recorded cassettes, 50 cassette singles from the 90's, and 1200 LPs. I replaced some of those 45s with LPs. I replaced about 300 of those LPs with CDs and I've purchased some 200 songs at iTunes.

What do YOU owe ME for collecting unwarrented licensing fees on MY music purchases these past 40 years?

The reason the rights of people like myself are not protected from this ripoff is because no one I know is fighting this legal fight. YOU immorally collect all those unwarrented profits because your lawyers can bully lawmakers and consumers.

So PLEASE, RIAA, don't give me any crap about the immoral nature of P2P or defend your Nazi-like tactics until you come clean about your own despicably immoral behavior.

screw

RIAA

THE RIAA IS A JOKE THEY TRY TO SUE EVERYONE HEY I REMBER WHEN THE INET WAS NOTHING IN 96' WHEN BBS WHERE POPULAR WE STILL GOT OUR PIRATED SOFTWARE AND EVEN WHEN THERE WHERE NO P2P NETWORKS WE STILL GOT OUR SHIT OFF OF MIRC AND NEWSGROUPS, HEY IF THEY SHUT DOWN ALL P2P'S I GUESS THE NEWER GENRATION WILL HAVE TO LEARN MIRC DCC TRANSFERS AND DECODE BINARY FILES FROM NG'S LIKE I USED TO
JUST MY 2CENTS
THANKS, ALWAYS & FOREVER PIRATING
LUKE SKYWALKER

Go LimeWire!

RIAA needs to rethink it's actions

First of all, iTunes fucking sucks because it doesn't work 3/4 of the time. No one wants something that does the following:
- Doesn't work most of the time
- Has obscure file formatting

Seriously, nothing wrong with paying for MP3's, but iTunes just simply doesn't do the ideology justice.

Second of all, the RIAA needs to realize they can't stop everyone sharing files. They just can't do it. Like someone said earlier: Stopping ALL file sharing would mean banning the internet. Instead, they need to find a way to use the internet effectively, or stop bitching. OR, here's an idea: Lower CD prices! No one wants to spend $15 dollars on something that only took like a $1 to make! Music is an art form, not a commodity. The record labels are greedy. In theory, if the record labels are greedy, so are most of the artists.

They are driving away the very people they want to attract in the first place: music fans. They are defeating their own purpose, and showing to everyone, "We like to sue our consumers!" I'm sure people have a reason for downloading music, the RIAA just fails to realize it's not just because they want it for free. I'm sure that's a reason too, but it's not the only one. Many people don't buy CD's for a few reasons:
1. Don't want the CD, just a few tracks. This is a big reason! Most people only want the "hit songs" off a disc.
2. Don't have the money. Let's face it, there is no way to cover this one up: CDs are expensive. You'd be naive and blind not to think so. You get 30 songs from 3 CD's, and it can cost up to 50 bucks. No one has enough money to buy them: their interest is high but they just can't do it.
3. Local CD shops don't have what they want. Another big one. A ton of great metal and punk CD's are just flat out impossible to find at your local Wal-Mart.

In conclusion, the RIAA needs to stop and rethink what they are doing. They are bullying their own consumers; that's what will lead to their sales dropping, even if it's just a little. I'm all for music, but until the RIAA changes it's ways, I will be against it.

RIAA is corrupt and do noy care about artist.

RIAA is corrupt and do not care about music artist at all. The only reason they sued these p2p companies is, because the RIAA and MPA record label companies will lose money.
Lime wire should never had been sued, they are not responsible for copyright infringement. It is the few people out there who had done these copyright infringement laws, but the RIAA and record label companies need someone to blame since they cannot find all the people abusing copyright infringement laws. Too many people catch and no way to find them; so the RIAA has to blame someone, so they blamed Limewire and any other p2p company and sued them since RIAA profits went down since these p2p companies been given existance.
Like everything else many large corporations are corrupted due to greed, people just can't be happy with having a million dollars anymore. The RIAA and a few record label companies fall into this category.
I love listening to music from all over the world and many types of genre, majority of times depending where you live, buying a music cd can be rare and hard to find for what you are looking for. This is where many people would turn to p2p or filesharing. There are many artist and genre of music I have never heard of before since it is never played on radio, never on t.v. or never at any music stores, but when able to search through p2p, filesharing or online. It is much more easy to find and had discoverd great artist unheard or unseen before and now a few of them I heard of I recommended to friends then few years later they became very popular and heard from a bit all over.
RIAA is very corrupt corporation, they are not there for the artist at all. Much of the amounts of money they sued against many p2p companies, they have not ever shared a single cent to any artist. They just keep all the profit for themselves.
Companies or programs that are similar to Limewire and such have helped other new beginning artist and musicians get discovered and heard.

Re: RIAA is corrupt and do noy care about artist.

I have to agree with you 100 precent! A am a music artist myself and p2p, filesharing is what helped me out as a musician, I may not be vastly famous in america, but it has got me a bit known in a few differnt states and even more so, in other countries. I had gigs, shows and concerts in other countries. Majority of my music was heard through companies such as Limewire and other more companies as well.
It's one of the main reasons I started posting my music on YouTube also,it was like free advertisement. Same with Limewire and other companies, but I am against copyright infringement laws, but Limewire is not to blame. It is the actually culprits to blame, but the law of the RIAA can not attain these criminals. There's just too many. Rapidly growing, so the RIAA needs someone to blame. So they blame the owners of the program that had no partake in any illegal activity.
RIAA does nothing for music artist, they just keep all the profit for themselves, there's only a select few music artist who make a lot of profit now a days and that only caters to certain types of genre of music that is very popular by todays demands and scenes. But for other artist differntly, RIAA could not careless because they don't profit a lot from these types of music artist. RIAA is only in the business for business of making money for themselves. They are afraid of the changing times in technology that will drop there great Profit making, but yet they are already financially set for life and regardless would still have millions in the bank, that is if they budgeted and saved wisely...
I think we should get rid of the RIAA, they have become corrupted.

Re: RIAA is corrupt and do noy care about artist.

I have to agree with you 100 precent! A am a music artist myself and p2p, filesharing is what helped me out as a musician, I may not be vastly famous in america, but it has got me a bit known in a few differnt states and even more so, in other countries. I had gigs, shows and concerts in other countries. Majority of my music was heard through companies such as Limewire and other more companies as well.
It's one of the main reasons I started posting my music on YouTube also,it was like free advertisement. Same with Limewire and other companies, but I am against copyright infringement laws, but Limewire is not to blame. It is the actually culprits to blame, but the law of the RIAA can not attain these criminals. There's just too many. Rapidly growing, so the RIAA needs someone to blame. So they blame the owners of the program that had no partake in any illegal activity.
RIAA does nothing for music artist, they just keep all the profit for themselves, there's only a select few music artist who make a lot of profit now a days and that only caters to certain types of genre of music that is very popular by todays demands and scenes. But for other artist differntly, RIAA could not careless because they don't profit a lot from these types of music artist. RIAA is only in the business for business of making money for themselves. They are afraid of the changing times in technology that will drop there great Profit making, but yet they are already financially set for life and regardless would still have millions in the bank, that is if they budgeted and saved wisely...
I think we should get rid of the RIAA, they have become corrupted.